FODDER AND FEED EVENTS

Transcription

1 FODDER AND FEED EVENTS CLONAKILTY COLLEGE, CO CORK, FEBRUARY 14 TH KILDALTON COLLEGE, CO KILKENNY, FEBRUARY 16TH

2 PROCEEDINGS THE RELATIVE COSTS OF FEEDS DR MARK MCGEE, IAWS GROUP plc HOME MIXING DR SIOBHAN KAVANAGH, TEAGASC KILDALTON FEEDING OPTIONS FOR CATTLE TOM EGAN, TEAGASC MOOREPARK AND PEARSE KELLY, TEAGASC KILDALTON REPLACING GRASS SILAGE ON DAIRY FARMS GEORGE RAMSBOTTOM, TEAGASC KILDALTON AND DERMOT MCCARTHY, TEAGASC MOOREPARK UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF FEEDS PAT CLARKE, TEAGASC KILDALTON MAIZE PRODUCTION BRIAN HILLIARD, TEAGASC DUNGARVAN AND JERRY MCCARTHY, TEAGASC MOOREPARK WHOLE CROP CEREALS JIM O MAHONY, TEAGASC KILDALTON TREATMENT OF GRAIN PEARSE KELLY, TEAGASC KILDALTON AND CHRISTY WATSON, TEAGASC NAAS USE OF ALTERNATIVE FEEDS TOM O DWYER, TEAGASC KILDALTON 1

3 DIET FEEDS DERMOT FORRISTAL, TEAGASC OAK PARK AND TOM RYAN, TEAGASC WEXFORD 2

4 THE RELATIVE COST OF FEEDS Dr. M. McGee, Technical Manager IAWS Group plc. INTRODUCTION The structure of Irish farming is changing rapidly and the market environment now requires that the industry concentrate on producing what the market needs rather than simply supplying what industry produces. The genetic make-up of the national beef and dairy herd has and is continually changing to more efficient, higher genetic merit, breeds and lines. Furthermore, convenience is an increasingly important element, particularly in light of recent labour shortages and the growing number of part-time farmers. Ireland is a deficit animal feed country. It has been known for many decades now, that grazed grass is the cheapest source of feed available to ruminants in Ireland provided the environment and management permit the production and utilisation of high yields of high digestibility herbage throughout the grazing season. Grazed grass can supply a major proportion or the total nutrient requirement of the animal depending on their production level, sward quality and climatic conditions. However, cognisance must be taken of the fact that cereals and by-product feeds are getting cheaper compared to forage, particularly grass silage. Even high quality, grass silage is no longer a cheap feed due to higher land prices, increasing costs of mechanisation, energy, methods of harvesting, storage and feeding. Indeed the cost of grass is not as inexpensive as portrayed either. GRAZED GRASS Grass either grazed or conserved (silage/hay) accounts for the largest component of ruminant diets in Ireland. There is tremendous variation within the island in annual grass yield and length of the grass-growing season and / or grazing season. 3

5 Most Irish grassland is old pasture and only about 3% of agricultural land is reseeded annually, primarily for winter-feed production. As a result, animals tend to graze old pasture for most of the season. Old pasture generally contains high proportions of inferior grasses (e.g. Poa and Agrostis species), which have lower digestibility, lower yield, shorter grazing season, poorer ensilability characteristics, etc. than perennial ryegrass. Grass is a very erratic feed source with annual dry matter (DM) yields varying by up to 90% at the same site. Likewise there is colossal variation in daily grass growth. Climate changes mean that the farmer cannot know the quantity or quality of grass that will be produced over the grazing season or the conditions that will prevail for utilisation. While a flexible grassland system involving rotational grazing, grass measurement etc. is advocated, the reality is that most of the fundamental problems associated with grass as a feed are not alleviated. Very large vertical gradients are found in the chemical constituents of grazed perennial ryegrass from the upper to the lower layer of the sward, essentially reflecting the proportions of blade, sheaths, stems and dead tissue. For example, digestibility % decreases by a massive 25 units from the upper to the lower layer. Evidently, grazing severity has enormous consequences on the quality of the material ingested. There are even significant differences in the composition of grass within a day. Grass dry matter is highly changeable with daily variation of over 100%. Even under consistent experimental management, the energy value of grass fluctuates by 20%. Obviously under farm conditions this will be much greater. Furthermore, grass later in the season has a lower dry matter digestibility (DMD) than spring grass and even at similar DMD values, it has a lower feeding value and lower intake characteristics, in comparison with grass available earlier in the season. In a grazing situation, the utilisation of herbage per ha is reduced relative to that obtained under a cutting regime due to the effects of more frequent defoliation and due to the impact of treading and fouling of herbage during grazing. Research at Teagasc Grange, has demonstrated that even with excellent grazing management, 4

6 beef cattle will consume only about 74% of the annual grass DM produced, while with poor grazing management the value is likely to be under 64%. In all grazing systems, the dilemma between maintaining pasture quality via high levels of utilisation and maintaining good / adequate animal performance is a problem. It should be noted that there are adverse consequences to extending the grazing season in Ireland. It is well established that compared to earlier closing, defoliation of swards late in the autumn/winter, results in delayed growth and reduced herbage mass in spring and often by substantially more than was removed in the autumn (e.g. delaying closure from Oct. to Dec. reduces spring grass yield by between 36 and 44%). The effect of autumn / winter soil damage or poaching has a dramatic negative effect on spring grass yield reducing it by 20 to 80% depending on the severity of the damage, as well as weakening the soil structure subsequently making it susceptible to water-logging. Where turnout to grass is early, subsequent pasture production in spring and early summer is reduced and the reduction increases the greater the severity of the grazing. Potential annual grass yield may be reduced by over 10% as a result of early turnout. Likewise, the practice of grazing the silage ground in early spring reduces the yield of first cut silage by up to 56% with the magnitude of the reduction increasing the lower the defoliation height and the later the defoliation or the earlier the cut. GRASS SILAGE As Irish grass growth is seasonal with 60-80% occurring in a four-month period, a source of feed is required for the winter period, which can vary from 2-7 months depending on location of the country and the weather. The main winter forage in Ireland is conserved grass. It should be noted that, silage making is also required as a management tool for our seasonal grass growth. 5

7 Approximately 4.4 million tonnes of silage DM are produced annually for winter feed. Nevertheless, although decreasing, a substantial acreage of hay is still conserved. Currently, maize silage makes a very small, niche contribution. Contractors harvest approximately 85-90% of the silage cut. Irish silage is almost exclusively from permanent grass swards. Silage produced from old permanent pastures usually has lower digestibility than silage produced from perennial ryegrass swards. There is relatively little successful field wilting for conventional silage in Ireland. Requirements for achieving a rapid wilt (<24 hours) are spreading the crop, dry weather and the presence of sunshine. If wilting is attempted during poor weather conditions, no drying occurs, effluent production will not be reduced, poorer preservation is likely and in severe cases complete crop loss can occur. Beef and dairy cattle fed wilted silages have a higher intake than those fed unwilted silages but the effects of wilting on animal production are generally negative or small. Wilting depresses output per hectare of both beef and dairy animal product by about 13% The aim of ensiling is to retain as much of the animal production potential of the harvested crop as feasible. However silage fermentation under farm conditions is not a controlled process. A plethora of factors with interactions affect the nutritive value of silage. Delays in harvesting reduces DMD by 0.5 percentage units per day or over 1.0 unit per day if lodged. As almost 90% of silage is harvested by contractors, inevitably, delays in cutting are widespread. In addition, bad preservation reduces DMD by on average 5 units but can be up to 11 units. Weather patterns, both directly and indirectly have a massive impact on the yield, dry-matter, digestibility and preservation and thus unit cost of silage. As a result, there is a clear limit on the extent of control over the weather induced variability and rapid response to weather circumstances is difficult to achieve as most silage is harvested by contractors. The quality (as analysed by Teagasc, Grange over a 10-year period) of both first cut and second cut Irish grass silage is highly variable and on average poor to medium 6

8 i.e. average DMD of 1 st cut = 670g/kg & 2 nd cut = 656g/kg. Furthermore, the average quality has not consistently improved over that time period despite the widely published silage-making strategies available. The nutritional quality of big bale silage tends to be worse than first cut and similar to second cut conventional silage. Over 87% of Irish farms have mould on their baled silage and 33% of all farms have some proportion of substantially rotted bales. Silages also vary widely in their aerobic stability upon exposure to air at feeding time. Aerobic deterioration can result in a decrease in silage quality and animal performance, reduce the amount of edible silage present and facilitates mould growth. High losses from aerobic spoilage can result in over 10% of the conserved grass not being available for consumption by the animal. Silage effluent is a serious pollutant with an extremely high biochemical oxygen demand making it almost 200 times more polluting than raw domestic sewage. Most of the grass ensiled in this country will produce between 75 and 200 litres of effluent / tonne while wet crops will produce up to 500 L/t. This must be collected and disposed of, usually via land spreading, which is an additional cost, often ignored. Data from the National Farm Survey shows that silage effluent is generally drained into purpose-built concrete effluent tanks rather than slurry tanks which further increases the cost of silage production. Maintenance of total conservation losses below 20% of the DM is an achievable target where very good silage-making practices are used but on most farms this target is not achieved and losses of 25-30% are common. GRASS/GRASS SILAGE DIETS Intake is one of the key limitations of forages. Reviews of the literature have shown that the reduction in voluntary intake of ensiled forage is on average 27% when compared with the corresponding fresh herbage. Forage diets, particularly grass silage, are also inherently imbalanced in energy / protein, as well as having multiple imbalances in major and trace elements. 7

9 ENERGY VALUE OF FEEDSTUFFS Recent research at Hillsborough has shown that the Metabolisable Energy (ME) system underestimates the maintenance nutrient requirements of lactating dairy cows on grass silage-based diets (and grass) by up to 56% with a mean underestimation of 40%. Similar results were also obtained for cattle and sheep. It is now firmly established that ME values are not necessarily related to animal maintenance or production and should NOT be used to compare the energy value of concentrates and forages. Comparison of feedstuff costs on a DM, digestible DM, utilisable DM or ME basis is misleading, as it hugely overvalues forages, particularly poor quality forage. The deficiencies of the ME system have led to the development of an Irish Net Energy (NE) System. NE ranks a feedstuff on the basis of animal performance or productive value, which is the proper way to determine the true energy value. Feed Costs Costs cannot be considered in isolation - partial analysis is erroneous. In examining the merits of feedstuffs, all associated costs must be included while mindfulness of factors such as convenience, the uncertainties involved, variation, residual effects, the long-term sustainability of a system, the product produced and market implications is critical. In terms of the animal, effects on body reserves, reproduction, longevity and health must be incorporated. The tendency to assign partial costs to forages is overwhelming and results in grossly misinforming conclusions. Furthermore, many publications present bestcase scenarios for forages i.e. assume perfect / niche conditions and very high levels of technical efficiency, without putting it in context. While others readily acknowledge the massive variation in forage yield and quality on-farm, only the theoretical is proclaimed. Of course, reality falls along way short of this. Most feed cost ratios published to date have omitted key costs, only presented best-case scenarios and did not use NE values. 8

10 The purpose of the following three tables is to highlight the variation in and the often, high cost of producing forages. This exercise does not attempt to take into account the intake potential / fill value (or protein) of the feedstuffs, a factor, which would further increase the cost of forages, particularly grass silage. It is fully realised that individual circumstances will vary and ideally all costings need to be carried out on an individual enterprise basis. The input costs used in this exercise are as per Teagasc, (Management Data for Farm Planning, 1999) and the Contractors Supplement, (Irish Farmers Journal, March 25, 2000) with an inflationary adjustment where appropriate. Forage costs are presented with and without a land charge. Table 1. Cost ( ) of Grazed Grass in terms of NE Yield/annum 11.0 t/ha 14.0 t/ha Utilisation % 65* 75** 85** 65* 75** 85** No Land Charge Cost/t DM produced Cost/t DM eaten Cost /UFL Land Charge included Cost/t DM produced Cost/t DM eaten Cost /UFL * = associated UFL of 0.91 ** = UFL of 0.95 Note: This exercise is carried out assuming a predominantly Perennial Ryegrass sward. As UFL values are generally much lower for inferior grass species, evidently under such circumstances (as per most of the country) the cost will be greater than outlined in the table. Table 2. Cost ( ) of Grass Silage* in terms of NE Yield of cut (t DM/ha) DMD (g/kg) No Land Charge Cost/t (to be eaten) Cost/t DM (to be eaten) Cost / UFL Land Charge included Cost/t (to be eaten) Cost/t DM (to be eaten) Cost / UFL

11 * = precision chop, harvesting inefficiency of 26%, additive used, walled silo Table 3. Cost ( ) of concentrates* in terms of NE Cost / t Cost / t DM Cost / UFL * Assume ration with UFL = 1.0 Note: When selecting the relevant purchased concentrate price, deduct an allowance (varies depending on ration type) for the included cost of Minerals and Vitamins per tonne as there are no added mineral/vitamins in grass silage. Where applicable, an on-farm storage cost + interest should be included (e.g / tonne). CONCLUSIONS While grass and grass silage is the foundation to ruminant production systems in Ireland, it has its limits, particularly with high producing animals and changing market requirements. Due to our seasonal grass growth a proportion of the land area will have to be harvested to provide forage for the winter period but also as a means to manage the grazing system. The relativity's calculated seriously question the role of grass silage on many Irish Farms. Obviously in situations where the cost of grass silage is greater than the cost of purchased concentrates, recommendations should be to minimise the amount of silage produced. This particularly applies to second and third cuts of silage, which are generally not required to manage grass. A more pertinent question for the future is what is our second-cheapest main source of feed? 10

12 HOME MIXING Dr. Siobhan Kavanagh, Teagasc, Kildalton INTRODUCTION Increasing pressure to reduce costs, declining cost of feed ingredients, availability of alternative feeds, technological advancements in the treatment of grain on farm and a depleted supply of labour, have led a lot of farmers to consider home mixing as a strategy to reduce feed costs, reduce labour demand, improve feeding management, improve animal performance and consequently profitability on the farm. Up to 30 per tonne can be saved by buying suitable straights rather than compound rations. However, there are hidden costs associated with home mixing that the farmer very often does not cost in. The savings made from home mixing must be balanced against the extra cost incurred. In this paper I will discuss the following areas: G G G G Benefits and limitations of home mixing Practicalities of home mixing Legislation applicable to home mixers Sample rations BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF HOME MIXING Benefits G Feed cost savings - Purchasing straight ingredients and feeding home-grown cereals can lead to savings of up to 30 / tonne on ingredient prices alone. G Tailor-made diet formulation - The farmer has greater confidence in the ingredients that he is mixing himself than when buying a compound feed. The concentrate portion of the diet can be tailor-made to match the feeding value of the forages available on the farm. G Flexibility in ingredient usage - 11

13 There is a large number of by-product ingredients available on the market that are of good feeding value and competitively priced. Technological advancements have seen significant developments in the processing of cereals (sodagrain and crimping) on farm. Home mixing allows easier inclusion of these in the diet and reduced feed costs. G Labour saving The reduction in labour requirements where a diet feeder is being used is of utmost importance, particularly at a time when labour is simply not available on farms. There is also the saving involved in being able to carry out all the feeding requirements using the one unit, for all stock. However where ingredients are being mixed manually this can be very labour intensive. G Total Mix Rations (TMR) - Traditionally, animals were fed forage on an ad-lib basis and offered concentrates one or two times per day. The relatively new concept of formulating a complete diet (Total Mix Ration TMR) has been used in this country for feeding our livestock since the early 80 s. Cattle / dairy farmers considering home mixing are most likely to consider investing in a diet feeder, possibly grow and store home grown cereals / protein sources on farm or buy in straight ingredients. There have been many claims on the benefits of TMR feeding. The mixing of the concentrate portion of the diet with the forage means that the animal is consuming a more uniform diet, leading to better animal performance. The health benefits of the TMR diet have been highlighted. The claimed benefits include a reduced incidence of sub-clinical acidosis, laminitis, better herd fertility, reduced incidence of acidosis, reduced laminitis and less stress. For dairy cows there are two primary sources of independent information based specifically on Irish data: Moorepark Studies A review of production data over the 10-year period from 1980 to 1990 looked at TMR feeding compared to separate feeding of forage and concentrates. 12

14 Concentrate proportions ranged from 37:63 to 60:40. The conclusions drawn were: G G G Where concentrate ratios were greater than 60% of the total DM (11 kg concentrate approximately), milk yield or milk fat was increased by TMR feeding. Where concentrates were less than 50% of the total DM (9 kg concentrate approximately) TMR feeding did not give a positive effect on yield or milk constituents. TMR feeding tended to increase total dry matter intake but this did not result in improved utilisation of the diet. Hillsborough Studies The Hillsborough results are as follows: G G A trial comparing TMR feeding and separate feeding of two concentrates (ground cereals or sodium hydroxide treated wheat), fed at 8 kg per day, showed method of feeding had no effect on intake, milk yield or composition. The separate feeding of the ground cereal diet gave higher milk fat and milk protein concentrations. At high concentrate input levels (13.5 kg or 62% of the DM) in a TMR diet compared to separate feeding 4 times per day, milk yield & yield of fat and protein were higher on the TMR diet. But intake was similar on the TMR diet and the 4 times per day feeding concentrate. Tables 1 and 2 present the results of Hillsborough work on complete diet feeding. In Table 1 there is a response of 3 kg milk to complete diet feeding. The proportion of forage is approximately 33% in this experiment. In Table 2 there is no response to complete diet feeding and the proportion of forage in the diet is 67%. These results agree with the theory that the response to complete diet feeding is related to the proportion of forage/concentrate in the diet. 13

15 Table 1. Effect of Method of Feeding on Animal Performance (1) Complete Diet Feeding OPF* Silage DMI (kg/day) Concentrate DMI (kg/day) Milk yield (kg/day) Fat concentration (g/kg) Protein concentration (g/kg) Fat yield (kg/day) Protein yield (kg/day) *OPF = Out of parlour feeders Gordon et al., 1995 Table 2. Effect of Method Feeding on Animal Performance (2) Twice Four Times Daily Complete Diet Daily Silage DM intake (kg/day) Concentrate DM intake (kg/day) Forage proportion in the diet Milk yield (kg/day) Protein concentration (g/kg) Fat concentration Agnew et al., 1996 Overall feeding at moderate levels showed no improvement in performance from TMR diets. At higher concentrate feeding levels there is probably a benefit from 3-4 times per day feeding or TMR feeding. There is limited data on the effect of TMR feeding on the performance of beef animals but it might be expected that the factors affecting the response to TMR feeding in dairy cows also apply to beef animals i.e. the proportion of concentrates and the number of feeds per day. Work from Grange concluded that where concentrate levels of up to 3 kg daily are offered, once daily feeding is satisfactory but where levels greater than 4 kg are fed, twice daily feeding or complete diet feeding should give improved performance. 14

16 Limitations G Quality control of raw materials - Ingredient quality is critical to the home mixer. The lack of screening of batches of ingredients and a quality control procedure make it difficult to quantify ingredient quality. G Capital investment There is a large capital investment in home mixing, particularly when a diet feeder must be purchased. Ancillary costs include the equipment needed to load the diet feeder and the cost of storage of raw materials on farm. Storage costs can range from 0 to 7 / tonne feed produced over a 20 year period. The cost of diet feeding will be dealt with in detail in the paper by Tom Ryan on Diet Feeders. G Less flexibility in ingredients - In theory there is greater flexibility in the ingredients that can be used, but in practice handling any more than 3-4 ingredients plus forages on the farm is time consuming and expensive. G Absence of bulk discounts on ingredients There are greater bulk discounts to be had when buying as part of a producer group. The discounts to be had may not be as great when buying as an individual. PRACTICALITIES OF HOME MIXING G Quality and Consistency of Ingredients - These are critical points to be considered when the home-mixer is buying straights. All feeds vary from batch to batch, even the unadulterated cereals. This is due to differences due to variety, soils, weather etc. By-product feeds have the additional source of variation of the process that they have undergone. Some of the most variable feeds include cottonseed meal, malt combings, sunflower meal, pollard and distillers grains. It is advisable for home mixers to 15

17 stick with less variable feeds to lessen the risk of getting a batch of poor quality material. Decisions on what ingredients should be used should be based on feeding value as well as monetary value. Ideally ingredients should be valued on their energy and protein value. Ingredients that are good value will vary from one year to the next. Maximum inclusion levels (Table 3) applied to feed ingredients should be adhered to - to avoid digestive upsets, toxicity, unpalatability of diets, off-feed and a negative effect on animal performance. Table 3. Maximum Inclusion Levels of Ingredients in the Concentrate Mix Feed Inclusion Level, % Dairy Beef Comment Barley Wheat Maize Cereals can make up a large proportion of the energy requirements of the animal but must be balanced for protein. If high levels are being used great care needs to be taken to avoid digestive upsets Beet pulp Beet pulp molassed Citrus pulp Pulps can be fed safely at high inclusion levels. Protein supplementation is generally needed. Maize gluten feed Has been fed to dairy cows and beef cattle as the sole concentrate. Protein quality is not ideal. Distillers grains Protein quality and oil content can be problematic. Feeding maize gluten feed and distillers grains in the diet to dairy cows limit both ingredients to 30%. Pollard Malt sprouts Soya hulls Copra meal Palm kernel meal ext Limited experience at high levels. Generally low energy feeds. Quality (pollard, palm kernel meal, malt sprouts) and palatability (palm kernel) could be problematic. 16

18 Cottonseed meal Rapeseed meal Soyabean meal Sunflower meal Any can be used to supply protein in the diet. Both cottonseed meal and sunflower meal are generally low energy and poor protein quality feeds. G Number of Ingredients - Keep the number of ingredients to a minimum and be able to include each ingredient at a high level. Feeds such as cereals, pulps and maize gluten feed are high quality and while they can vary from batch to batch they can be included at high levels. This will reduce the storage space required on the farm. A well balanced diet can be achieved with a small number of ingredients. An alternative option may be to purchase a blend of ingredients, particularly when looking for a protein balancer. G Consult a Nutritionist - Correct ration formulation is vital. Formulating, mixing and feeding the diet is critical to achieving target animal performance. It is important to consult a nutritionist to ensure that diets are correctly balanced for all nutrients, including minerals and vitamins. G Minerals It is critical that all diets are correctly balanced for minerals. Many co-ops formulate specifications based on Teagasc recommendations for dry cow, lactation and drystock. Shop around when purchasing minerals and consult your nutritionist. G Labour saving When considering the work rate of the feeding operation in a home mixing situation, it is important to consider the following factors: a. Feeding system that the new system is being compared to b. The feed mix being used c. The size of the wagon, in the case of wagon feeding d. Distance between feed storage and feeding area 17

19 LEGISLATION ON HOME MIXING Inform yourself on the legislation regarding home mixing. The main elements of the legislation are presented below: 1. If you produce feedingstuffs on your farm i.e. feed containing a mixture of ingredients, and if you include additives or certain protein products either directly or as part of a premixture or mineral mixture, then you must be either approved or registered. 2. Determination of whether you need to be approved or registered will depend on the type of additive you use, as follows: (a) Approval You will need to be approved if you use any of the following additives: G G G Antibiotics Coccidiostats and histomonostats Growth promoters (b) Registration You will need to be registered if you use any of the following additives: G G G G G G Vitamins Trace elements Enzymes Micro-organisms Carotenoids & xantophylls Anti-oxidants with a fixed maximum level The majority of farmers will fall under the second heading of needing Registration rather than Approval. Registration will be on foot of a written declaration by the livestock producer that he/she fulfills the minimum conditions laid down below. A registration number will be assigned to each home producer. 3. Minimum conditions for registration cover 18

20 a. Facilities and Equipment Facilities and manufacturing equipment must be located, designed, constructed and maintained to suit the manufacture of the products concerned. b. Production Written documentation must be prepared for the procedures used in the mixing of feeds on farm. c. Quality Control In order to ensure traceability, samples of all raw materials coming onto the farm must be taken. These must be kept in storage at the disposal of the competent authorities for a period appropriate to the use to which the feedingstuffs are put. d. Storage of Raw Materials Raw materials must be stored in places designed, adapted and maintained in order to ensure good storage conditions - dry, clean and vermin free. They must be stored in such as way as to avoid any confusion or crosscontamination. Preventative measures must be taken to avoid, as far as possible, the presence of harmful organisms with the introduction of a pest control program. e. Record keeping The farmer must record the following information: - The nature and quantity of the feedingstuffs manufactured, with the date of manufacture - The nature and quantity of additive used and the names and addresses of the additive manufacturers. - The names and addresses of the pre-mixture manufacturers with the batch number, the nature and quantity of the pre-mixture used. 19

21 Sample Rations for Beef Cattle and Dairy Cows Animal Class Comments Sample Rations Finishing cattle* Energy is most important % in dry matter is adequate, unless grass silage is low in protein 50% rolled barley 50% maize gluten or 33% rolled barley 34% maize gluten Weanlings* Need medium to high energy - 16% crude protein Milking cows Maintain high energy levels in the diet Require an overall crude protein of 16-17% in the dry matter % dairy concentrate fine on grass silage Higher protein concentrate needed to balance maize silage, fodder beet & super pressed pulp 33% citrus pulp 33% rolled barley 33% distillers grains 33% citrus pulp or beet pulp or 50% maize gluten 50% rolled barley or 30% distillers grains 70% rolled barley Grass silage balancers 35% barley 30% maize gluten 26% distillers grains 6.5% rapeseed meal 2.5% minerals / vitamins or 33% beet pulp 33% maize gluten 32% maize distillers 2% minerals / vitamins Maize silage balancer 27% soyabean meal 20% maize gluten 17% beet pulp 17% rapeseed meal 16.5% distillers grains 2.5% minerals / vitamins or 30% beet pulp 30% distillers grains 37% soyabean meal 3% minerals / vitamins *Diets for finishing cattle and weanlings should be balanced for minerals and vitamins 20

22 FEEDING OPTIONS FOR CATTLE Tom Egan, Moorepark & Pearse Kelly, Kildalton INTRODUCTION Winter feed constitutes 60-80% of variable costs on cattle farms depending on the system. Any serious attempt to reduce production costs must include an examination of winter feed alternatives. The traditional winter feeding programme is based on grass silage, supplemented with purchased concentrates. In recent years maize silage, whole crop cereal silage and home grown, treated cereal grains have been increasingly used particularly for finishing cattle. Treated grain can be caustic, crimped or urea treated. Do these feeds have performance, management or financial advantages over grass silage based diets? SYSTEMS To examine the role of these alternative feeds on beef farms we have looked at two case studies. The first unit is an integrated 60 suckler cow to beef farm of 150 acres (130 adjusted). All the progeny (except replacements) are finished to beef, heifers at 20 months (530kgs) and steers at months and at 700kg live weight. The second farm is an all beef unit of the same size. Basic premium stocking density allows for 100 weanling steers to be purchased each autumn for finishing 18 months later, again at 700kg live weight. As in all cattle farming systems, the availability of premia and, possibly, extensification is critical to profitability. The impact of any feed supply changes on stocking density has also to be taken into account. Table 1. Case Studies Suckler to Beef Weanling to Beef Total acres Adjusted acres Suckler cows 60 Weanling/beef 100 Steers finish 700 kg (24 mths) 700 kg (24 mths) Heifers finish 530 kg (20 mths) 21

23 Options The base system on both farms is grass silage plus purchased concentrates. The alternatives considered are (i) Maize silage / whole crop cereal (WCC) replacing some grass silage. (ii) Home grown, treated grain (HGG) replacing purchased concentrate. (iii) Home grown, treated grain (HG) replacing silage giving high concentrate diets. The production costs assumed for these feeds are as follows: Grass silage Maize silage (30% DM) Home grown cereal (treated) Purchased concentrates Purchased concentrates 14/tonne 18/tonne 84% DM Equiv. 130 (normal protein) 140 (Including some maize balancer) Grazing Plan Taking out grassland for cereals or maize reduces the area available for first and second cut silage and for autumn grazing. In both systems there is a deficit of grazing area in autumn, which looks significant in the weanling to beef system. A reduced requirement for second cut silage would affect this deficit with good grassland management. A grazing plan for the weanling to beef unit is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Grazing Plan Weanling/Beef System 130 Adjusted Acres All Grass Option Maize/Cereal Option Grazing (ac) Silage (ac) Grazing (ac) Silage (ac) Spring Summer Autumn Total Silage The deficit in autumn grazing is 20 acres, but there were 10 acres of surplus in mid summer, with no second cut silage being taken. 22

24 Effect on Premia In the suckler system there is no problem claiming basic premia for all cattle, in any of the options. After 2001, extensification will be very tight in the base all-grass option, and unattainable if maize or cereals is grown, since this ground cannot then be included for extensification purchases. The impact of losing extensification would be much greater than any feed savings possible, but this will not apply in all situations. In the weanling to beef system, extensification qualification is not an issue, all options qualify for the low rate from Basic premia will be affected where arable aid is claimed. The net result of this is that arable aid will not be claimed in these circumstances. Animal Performance Finishing steers are the main category of livestock affected by the dietary alternatives in both systems. The assumptions made regarding performance of these animals are as follows: Period (days) Performance Base Ad-lib silage + 5kgs conc kgs/day Option 1 Maize / WCC silage + 3 kgs conc kgs/day Option 2 Ad-lib silage + 5 kgs HGG kgs/day Option 3 Ad-lib conc. HG/Purchased kgs/day In the suckler system some cereal silage or home-grown grain is fed to weanlings or finishing heifers. The impact of this is minimal. Summary of Feed Costs Table 3 outlines the differences in winter feed costs across the alternatives. For example growing 10 acres of maize silage in the suckler system results in a saving of 1,437 in winter feed costs. If the land is eligible for Area Aid, then this is a further reduction in feed costs of 1,100, leading to a total of 2,537 ( 1, ,100). In 23

25 the current example there is no effect on basic premia but there are situations where, due to tighter stocking rates, there is a loss in basic premia, which would have the effect of reducing the advantage of growing maize to 1,137 ( 2,537-1,400) (See Table 3). The above calculations also apply to the other options. Twenty acres of maize silage grown in a weanling to beef system reduces the feed bill by 2,090. Eligibility for arable aid could add 110 per acre grown where cattle premium claims were unaffected. Table 3. Effect of feeding alternatives on winter feed costs Suckler to Beef Weanling to Beef Base Cost 15,187 23,230 Effect of diet change: Maize silage 1-1,437-2,090 HG grain (+ Silage) - 1,008* - 2,100* HG grain (all Conc.) Effect of Premia: Area Aid eligibility? - 1,100-2,200 Lose Basic premia + 1, ,800 Lose Extensification + 3, ,200 * Serious silage deficit; 1 See text for explanation The production of cereal grain crops to replace purchased concentrates is not as attractive as it might seem. The reduction in silage production leads to a deficit situation requiring the purchase of roughage. The end result is the purchase of forage rather than concentrate, with all the supply, transport and cost difficulties which can follow. Silage Cost The assumption of a cost of 14/tonne of good quality grass silage as fed is very much at the root of all these calculations. A variation of 2/tonne in the cost would have a significant effect on the comparisons, particularly in the non-suckler situation (see table 4). Table 4. Effect of 2/tonne increase in grass silage costs Suckler to Beef Weanling to Beef Base Cost 16,927 24,748 Effect of diet change: 24

26 Maize - 1,755-3,030 HG Grain (+ Silage) - 1,008-2,100 HGG (all Conc.) - 1,013-1,520 CONCLUSIONS Alternative feeds such as maize or whole crop cereal silage or home grown treated cereals can have a role to play in reducing feed costs on cattle farms. They need to be planned into the system so that grazing management, overall winter feed budgets and premium eligibility are not adversely affected. The cost of all these crops is very sensitive to good husbandry and high yields. Tillage skills required may not be available on the typical cattle farm, but good contracting services can overcome this. These costings are based on maize silage, whole crop wheat costs an extra 10 per tonne of DM. Excellent whole crop is similar to excellent maize silage for cattle finishing. A uniform price for silage is assumed here. In reality, second cut silage is more expensive and of inferior quality to first cut. Replacing second cut is therefore a viable option for many cattle farmers. First cut silage plays a large role in spring grassland management as well as providing winter feed, and will continue to be part of most cattle farming systems. Overall feed costs reductions of per finishing animal would significantly increase the margins from winter finishing, whether as a stand alone system or as part of an integrated herd. The largest benefits will be obtained where there is a higher proportion of finishing cattle to be fed for the winter. Finally, none of these alternatives should be considered a substitute for good management. If cattle performance on the existing system is poor, changing the forage or concentrate type alone is unlikely to solve all problems. 25

27 REPLACING GRASS SILAGE ON DAIRY FARMS DOES IT PAY? George Ramsbottom, Teagasc, Kildalton Dermot McCarthy, Teagasc, Moorepark Grass silage is the principal ingredient in the winter ration of most Irish dairy cows. The costs of producing maize silage or cereals have declined relative to silage in pence per kg DM, particularly second cut silage. This has influenced thinking about the material as the main ingredient in winter diets. Previous studies have not examined: 1. What the economic advantage amounts to in the whole farm context; 2. What are the hidden extra costs involved in the changeover to an alternative wintering programme that have not been included; 3. Does the overall net benefit justify the change from the conventional system of milk production? Two case studies are presented here comparing the economics of replacing grass silage with either maize silage or concentrates for Spring and Autumn calving herds. SPRING MILK In the case of spring milk production, two options are compared with the conventional two-cut grass silage system. The case study farm is a 120-acre; 96,000-gallon dairy farm stocked with 80 dairy cows and 20 replacement units. Yield per cow is held constant (1,200 gallons per lactation) by restricting intake in the maize silage and concentrate systems. The physical details relating to acreage of pasture and maize silage and concentrate inputs are outlined in Table 1. 26

28 Table 1. Area of pasture, grass and maize silage and concentrate input (kg/unit) for the three spring milk production systems. Control Maize Concentrate Silage harvested (acres) Grass 1 st cut Grass 2 nd cut Maize Short-term letting Concentrate input (kg/unit) Milking cows Dry cows Replacement (0-1yo+1-2yo) Assumptions 1. Control Diet The control diet for the milking cows is based on the Teagasc blueprint diet for spring calving dairy animals (assuming a mean calving date of 1 st February). It is assumed that the silage fed to the dry cows is of sufficient quality to maintain/increase condition to the target score at calving. The grass silage yields for first and second cuts were assumed to be 2.2 and 1.4 tonnes DM/ac respectively. The concentrate allowance per replacement unit is sufficient to achieve the target liveweight for two-year-old calving. The cost of the concentrate fed to the dairy cows was 150/tonne and the allowance for the milking cows in all three systems was calculated using the Net Energy System. Dietary allowances were calculated to feed cows to a yield potential of 6 gallons/day at peak yield indoors. The cost of the concentrate fed to the replacement heifers was 120/tonne. 2. Maize Silage System Replacing grass silage with maize silage pre- and post-turnout increased the cost of the concentrate fed to 160/tonne (because of the higher protein content required) but reduced the concentrate requirement of the spring calving cows by 27

29 an estimated 140kg. The dry cows and replacement heifers were fed the standard diet of grass silage similar to the control group. The acreage of second cut silage is reduced because the yield of maize is sufficient to meet the forage requirements of the milking cows with surplus maize silage being fed to the dry cows. The maize yield was assumed to be 5 tonnes DM/ac. After the first cut of silage is taken, the 8 acres for second cut silage now no longer required is assumed to be short-term leased for second cut silage making (at 85/acre). 3. Concentrate system Eliminating the second cut of silage increases the acreage of grassland available for short-term letting to 28 acres. An extra 216kg concentrates are fed to dry cows and an increased quantity is fed to replacement animals and milking cows (550kg/unit and 138kg/head respectively) to maintain performance and spare silage. The cost of the additional concentrates fed to dry cows and replacement heifers was valued at 120/tonne. The cost of producing milk based on the three production systems is outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Estimated costs of production ( /system) for the three spring milk production systems. Control Maize Concentrate Gross output 98,900 98,900 98,900 Variable costs Fertiliser/silage making costs 13,736 14,258 12,210 Concentrate costs 7,200 5,840 12,250 Other variable costs 9,920 9,920 9,920 Total 30,856 30,018 34,380 Fixed costs 20,000 20,000 20,000 Plus let land ,380 Net margin 48,044 49,562 46,900 Change over control system - + 1,518-1,144 Sensitivity analysis of dairy concentrate costs ± 10/tonne ± 400 ± 288 ± 510 Economic Evaluation 28

30 1. Control diet The control diet for the milking cows leaves a margin of 48,044 or 50.0p/gallon. The variable costs for fertiliser, silage making and contractor costs are calculated using the Teagasc publication Management Data for Farm Planning 2000 while the other variable costs and fixed costs are calculated using the National Farm Survey 2000 (mainly dairying data). On individual farms the costs of milk production will vary from the figure presented here of 48.6% of gross output as net profit. A range in the cost of milk production of from 35% to 80% is commonly observed at farm level. 2. Maize silage Net margin increased compared with the conventional system by 1,518. Over half of the increase in net margin came from a reduction in variable costs and the balance came from the release of land from second cut silage production. Concentrate costs fell by 1,360 because of the reduction in the quantity of meal needed by the dairy cows to maintain milk production. Fertiliser/silage making costs rose by 522 principally because all of the machinery required to grow and harvest the maize silage is hired. 3. Concentrate System Overall the variable costs increased by The savings made through the reduction in fertiliser/contractor costs of an estimated 1,526 were lost because concentrate costs rose by 5,050. Ultimately net margin decreased compared with the conventional system by 1,144 even though the 28 acres of land used in the conventional system for second cut silage was let at 85/acre. WINTER MILK In the case of winter milk production, the same two options are compared with the conventional two-cut grass silage system. The case study farm is a 120-acre; 107,200-gallon dairy farm stocked with 80 dairy cows and 20 replacement units. Yield per cow is held constant (at 1,400 gallons for the 32 winter calving cows and 1,300 gallon for the 48 spring calving cows) by restricting intake in the maize silage 29

31 and concentrate systems. The physical details relating to acreage of pasture and maize silage and concentrate inputs are outlined in Table 3. Table 3: Area of pasture, grass and maize silage and concentrate input (kg/unit) for the three winter milk production systems. Control Maize Concentrate Silage harvested (acres) Grass 1 st cut Grass 2 nd cut Maize Short-term letting Concentrate input (kg/unit) Spring calving cows Autumn calving cows 1, ,590 Dry cows Replacement (0-1yo+1-2yo) ,050 Assumptions 1. Control diet The control diet for the milking cows is based on the Teagasc blueprint diet for spring and autumn calving dairy animals (assuming a mean calving date of 1 st February and 1 st November respectively). Assumptions for the target condition score at calving, replacement heifer management, net energy allowances and the cost of the concentrates fed are as for the spring calving case study. Dietary allowances were calculated to feed spring and autumn calving cows to 6 and 6.5 gallons/day at peak yield respectively. 2. Maize silage system assumptions as per spring calving case study. Replacing grass silage with maize silage pre- and post-turnout increased the cost of the concentrate fed to 160/tonne (because of the higher protein content required) but reduced the concentrate requirement of the autumn calving cows by an estimated 235kg. 3. Concentrate system Assumptions for the spring calving cows, dry cows and replacement heifers are as per the spring milk case study. An estimated extra 138 / 410kg 30

32 concentrate are fed to the spring / autumn calving cows respectively compared with the control system. The cost of producing milk based on the three production systems is outlined in Table 4. Table 4: Estimated costs of production ( /system) for the three winter milk production systems. Control Maize Concentrate Gross output 121, , ,380 Variable costs Fertiliser/silage making costs 13,736 14,631 12,210 Concentrate costs 10,469 8,803 16,108 Other variable costs 10,144 10,144 10,144 Total 34,349 33,578 35,252 Fixed costs 25,000 25,000 25,000 Plus let land 0 1,275 2,380 Net margin 62,031 64,077 60,298 Change over control system - + 2,046-1,733 Sensitivity analysis of dairy concentrate costs ± 10/tonne ± 618 ± 475 ± 823 Economic Evaluation 1. Control diet The control diet for the milking cows leaves a margin of 62,031 or 57.9p/gallon. This is the equivalent of a net margin of 50.5% of gross output. On most winter milk farms the fixed costs are normally higher than those observed on spring milk farms. The fixed costs included in this case study are again based on those recorded in the National Farm Survey 2000 but adjusted to reflect the higher fixed costs generally observed with winter milk production. However the assumption that they remain constant across all milk production systems allows the fixed costs to be included for comparative purposes within the case study. 2. Maize silage 31

33 Net margin increased compared with the conventional system by 2,046. In this example over one third of the increase in net margin came from a reduction in variable costs and the balance came from the opportunity cost of the released land from second cut silage production. Concentrate costs fell by 1,666 because of the reduction in the quantity of meal needed by the dairy cows to maintain milk production. Fertiliser/silage making costs rose by 895 principally because all of the machinery required to grow and harvest the maize silage is hired. 3. Concentrate system Overall the variable costs increased by 903. The savings made through the reduction in fertiliser/contractor costs of an estimated 1,526 were lost because concentrate costs rose by 5,639. Ultimately net margin fell compared with the conventional system by 1,733 even though 28 acres of land was let for second cut silage making at 85/acre. Thus, similar to the spring calving system, the letting of land did not compensate for the increase in variable costs. CONCLUSIONS 1. Alternative systems of milk production may improve margins on dairy farms. Most of the increase in net margin obtained from the maize silage, milk production systems came from the opportunity cost of letting some of the land for second cut silage. Where such an opportunity cost could not be realised, the improvement in net margin would be reduced. 2. The above figures for the maize silage system relate to a situation where no area aid payments are being collected on the maize silage area. Where eligible land is available but not being utilized, net margin would potentially increase by an additional 1,300. If area aid payments are currently being drawn on such eligible land, the economic benefit of area aid is not a relevant consideration. The same considerations apply if cereals are grown on the farm for animal feeding. 32